Indefiance Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Just a quick critique of the segment about 'morality while under coercion'. I agree with the principle, but not the application. I don't think the conclusions presented were rigorously defined. I'm also unsure how we can get to the principle in the first place, even though I do agree with it, using UPB. Perhaps someone here would venture a suggestion? I commented on the youtube channel as well. To quickly reiterate what I said there: I fully agree with the principle paraphrased here as 'there is no morality in situations of coercion'. I question whether it is being applied consistently or fairly however. So I feel like it is being used, or could be used to justify a number of different acts that I think would be inconsistent morally, because I don't believe the terms or there use were defined well enough. Specifically: what is coercion? It seems the definition that Stefan uses is so widely interpreted that it could mean 'living in any society with a monopoly of violence at its center is a situation of coercion'. This is clearly false, for if we were to take this definition and apply it to the principle, then any act whatsoever within said society by its members could not be judged moral or immoral. I could use this principle to justify anything. I could murder rape and steal all day long and not be judged since I live within a society of coercion. Soooo...that being said, what is the proper definition? In my opinion I think the principle should be restated or reformulated something like this: "In choices or situations where an immediate threat of violent retribution is a possible outcome, there is no moral judgement" Notice the word coercion (loose term and hard to define) has been removed, and been replaced by a specific 'immediate threat of violent retribution' which clearly defines where and when this principle can be applied. Now, I realize I made a new distinction, and perhaps it could be said I did so arbitrarily, but I intuitively believe this is the correct application of the principle he is using via metaphor, but I would need some help to defend it rigorously...any takers? Why do I believe it, simply because if it isn't used this way, it could be used to defend rape, murder etc. and this is one of the first defining rules of UPB...any system of ethics that could be used to defend rape, murder etc....should be discarded out of hand forthwith. So take the rape example Stefan used: this is obvious that anyone being raped with a threat of violence to coerce them cannot be judged as immoral, they had a choice per se to resist, but it wasn't free of 'an immediate violent retribution'. This would preclude the overly broad defintion he seems to be using ad hoc to justify living within a system of violence. But also when stated this way, we can see where it doesn't apply. So, choosing to be a teacher on the dole, choosing to recieve welfare. In short, choosing to be an active supporter, directly or indirectly of a geographical monopoly of violence puts that person in the place of the rapist, not the rapee. True? They had a choice free of an immediate threat of violence...they can't claim they had a gun to there head when taking the check, when supporting the state, etc. We might also redefine more carefully the word choice. I think it would be fair to say that choices don't truly exist when faced with violence for making the wrong decision. I think an argumetn could be made that That word 'choice' doesn't exist ,or is used incorrectly, when applied to the person who is faced with violent retribution. However, When such retribution doesn't enter the equation, then they are fully culpable for the choice. Taxes is like being raped. You do it because you have to or face retribution. Taking a government grant for college is like being the rapist. You had a choice free of retribution to NOT take the money, no immediate threat to your survival justifies you taking that course of action. Your actions are therefore fully capable of being judged as moral or immoral. My Summation: Act morally where we have the power to act free of violent retribution. All else can be justifiably placed at the feet of those who hold the gun. So I guess my question is: How is this reasoning wrong or was I misunderstanding something in some way?
Guest Upthedownescalator Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Hello In referrence to your first sentence I have one idea and that would be UPB says there must be choice in order for there to be morality. Someone may press a gun to you and give you a "choice" between killing person A or Killing Person B but it is not really a choice. Stef just says that the focus of the question of morality should be on the initiator of the original immorality. Stef goes on to say that in the areas where the coercion doesn't affect your life (e.i. relationships) then moral choice can be exercised. So it's not like it's would make raping and stealing amoral, I guess Stef would say only if you were forced to rape or steal would it be so. I think his definition of coercion would be "the initiation of the use of force". About your reformulation of the principle, why does it need to be an immediate threat, surely a threat is a threat. Also retribution would imply that the threated force was justified. As a side note even taking a college grant could be seen as a decision under coercion, the state has afterall raised the prices of tuition fees a lot. So in my opinion it was a misunderstanding? Let me know what you think. Peace. Charlie
Indefiance Posted March 6, 2013 Author Posted March 6, 2013 Hey Thanks for taking the time to respond. I just wanted someone to bounce this off of since it was sticking in my craw so to speak upon hearing it. I would appreciate any further insights you may have as well. It has also been something I have grappled with in the past to a great degree. Long story short, I became a Conscientious Objector and left the army about 4 years ago now when I finally accepted and began to apply the NAP. How to apply it rationally has been something I have put a lot of thought into. My best guess that I came to finally was to basically Act upon the principle to the best of my ability where I have the power to act. Simply put, where I have a choice in the matter, I will choose the NAP. Error on the side of caution etc. Consequently around that same time, I breached my contract with the ROTC and dropped out of college all based on my convictions and best understanding of the principle. I couldn't see how taking government money, or attending a government run school (all supported by force and violations of the NAP) was any different than actively supporting that same institution via the military. Perhaps some here would say I threw the baby out with the bathwater. For me, I just have always been all or nothing when it comes to a principle I accept. As Ayn Rand would say, "there is no compromise with poison". Where I would differ with Rand would be in Aesthetics of course, there she took that uncompromising spirit too far. Hello In referrence to your first sentence I have one idea and that would be UPB says there must be choice in order for there to be morality. Someone may press a gun to you and give you a "choice" between killing person A or Killing Person B but it is not really a choice. Stef just says that the focus of the question of morality should be on the initiator of the original immorality. Ok I can see that, and I said pretty much the same thing myself as well, not realizing its full application. Its almost like we should refuse to sully the word 'choice' in such a situation since it really isnt' a choice. I agree that we should look to the instigator as the responsible party for sure. Stef goes on to say that in the areas where the coercion doesn't affect your life (e.i. relationships) then moral choice can be exercised. So it's not like it's would make raping and stealing amoral, I guess Stef would say only if you were forced to rape or steal would it be so. I think his definition of coercion would be "the initiation of the use of force". Yes, I remember this. And you're correct, I would have to agree by my own definition as far as that takes us. My worry is that the defintion is so loosely defined it could be misconstrued to give justification for any number of evils. For instance, what specifically constitutes 'initiation of force'. To me, this is physical violence done directly to my person or the credible threat thereof. About your reformulation of the principle, why does it need to be an immediate threat, surely a threat is a threat. Also retribution would imply that the threated force was justified. I added 'immediate' since this would lend creedance to the credible threat. i.e., the gun is in my face, this is clearly immediate, and clearly credible. So in retrospect, perhaps 'credible' is a better choice, but the intention of rationally defining 'initiation of force' remains the same. I mean, if these are the principles we stand upon as libertarians, I think its high time we clearly and rationally define them so they aren't some nebulous construct that could be misconstrued and justify murder. So, to continue, I believe 'initiation of the use of force' has to be a credible, clear and present danger, and not something that may happen to me ,maybe, possibly at some point in the future. Notice that 'credible' would also help weed out instances of misuse of the principle surrounding things like...'child of 7 killed. Defendant , 35, claims he was being threatened by the child and the child had 'initiated the use of force'. I suppose there are instances where this could be true. guns being the great equalizer, but the 'credibilty' of the claim has to be established to make it valid. As a side note even taking a college grant could be seen as a decision under coercion, the state has afterall raised the prices of tuition fees a lot. Taxes correctly fall under this category to me, being a credible, clear and present perhaps even 'physical' danger to our continued wellbeing since we can and have clearly seen what happens to those who don't consent. But there are surely Other things I don't believe fall into this category since they are mere hypotheticals based upon conjecture. Things like taking a college grant. The danger is not clear, present or credible by any rational defintion of those words as far as I can see. The 'threat' in such a case is merely conjectures based upon an a priori patchwork of guesses as to possible outcomes..i.e,. you think your future is being limited in some fashion without the college education. But I think a good argument could be made that higher education is as stultifying as all other public schools and deleterious to overall education and intelligence, and the danger is actually in the attendance thereof. Thats the problem with conjecture, it can be construed either way and I think you would be hard pressed to make the case that you were being forced in this situation to such a degree that your choices became amoral. Its this type of broad brush approach which I fear is using the Non-aggression principle to jusfify immorality. Because by that exact same rational, if I am living hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, and starving and I know its because the government inflates and taxes and destroys wealth every chance it can (all true), and then I go rob a bank and kill someone along the way, am I then justified in that robbery and murder? For it seems to me that is the logical conclusion of his reasoning. Is that action Amoral and can't be judged as wrong since I am living in a society literally nose-diving into the ground by the thugs in government, and they made me do it? How is this application of the principle currently so loosely defined any different from justifying taking a handout using the same rational? Am I missing something here? I think the only solution to avoid this type of reasoning and misapplication is to redefine or just define the principle as I have done. At this time I can't see any other way to avoid this. So, in short If I am wrong, Help me see how refusing to take a handout is a 'credible, clear and present physical danger' to your person. I can't see the gun myself, so I am forced to conclude that coercion was not a part of this situation. So in my opinion it was a misunderstanding? Let me know what you think. I'm not sure. I think that I would want some clarification from Stef to see for sure. What do you think? Have I made the case that we need to rationally define the non-aggresion principle to keep it from becoming badly misused? Whatever the case may be as to my reasoning, I believe that its just a good practice in philosophy to define our terms. So, either way I think a discussion needs to be made to clearly define when and where and how 'initiation of the use of force' can be correctly used.
Arius Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 There are forms of coercion which have nothing to do with physical violence. Lies and emotional manipulation are both very common examples. If I can make you believe something, I can control your behavior... I can make you self-attack. In fact, with deception I can accomplish significantly more than I can with a gun. Remember, it's not shooting someone that makes me powerful, it's threatening to shoot someone that makes me powerful. A necessary component of a free choice is the lack of artificial consequences. If one person imposes artificial, involuntary consequences on another, as part of a decision, then it isn't a free choice (It's a utilitarian calculation). In fact, a gun is worthless when compared with the power of making someone believe they will get shot. Coercion is power over the mind. It is not physical force. Violence is only the most obvious tool of control, there are many others. Taking a government grant for college is like being the rapist. Actually, there is one difference. In the case of the rapist, the victim has expressed a preference not to have sex. No one relinquishing the money has expressed a preference for you not to take it. Specifically: what is coercion? It seems the definition that Stefan uses is so widely interpreted that it could mean 'living in any society with a monopoly of violence at its center is a situation of coercion'. Address the specific before the general. Coercion exists between people (like two of 'em), as a series of spoken or gestural ideas. Being in a particular geographic area is no more an excuse to act-up than it is a social contract. Standing in the middle of Iowa has nothing to do with coercion. If you think of your interactions with other people as not being part of some gigantic collective named "Society", then you won't have quite so much trouble seeing coercion.
Indefiance Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 Really quick, I just wanted to review so far: Stef brings up the principle: 'There is no morality in situations of coercion'. He mentions situations where someone is being raped or mugged, and the actions of the person who is being raped/mugged under those circumstances being 'amoral' inasmuch that we cannot pass moral judgment on those actions. For the record: I agree whole-heartedly with this understanding of that situation specifically. The blame should be firmly laid at the feet of those perpetrating the violence. Continuing on, Stef uses this principle in the show to attempt to justify his apparant opposition to 'going galt'. (correct me if I am wrong in that assumption) This could include things like refusal to pay taxes, or going off the grid and being complete non-participants. Refusing to let the parasites feed etc. He applies the above principle metaphorically to this situation. Likening the victim above with all participants in a modern society, and the mugger to being 'The State', and we all as victims of that society should not feel guilty in any way for our actions in the same manner that the person being raped or mugged should feel no guilt i.e., 'there is no morality in situations of coercion' is the cover being applied for the actions of the people within a coercive society. This would mean we should not feel any guilt whatsoever for paying taxes. (Which I happen to agree applies here just fine) Despite the fact that I believe it applies to taxation, does not in my mind justify this principle being used 'societally' ad hoc in this manner. So For the record: This is where I see the disconnect. This is where I believe he has taken it too far. The application of that principle seems too broadly applied in this specific instance of its use, since I believe I have shown logically above how such a broad application of this principle allows for gross immoralities to be justified thereby. Furthermore, I believe it comes from a misapplication of the NAP, surrounding the use of the word 'coercion' within that above statement, and thus my quest to attempt to refine that definition and eradicate the word 'coercion' since it allowed this misapplication to begin with. Feel free to read through the logical breakdown and correct me if I am wrong.I would add that for a metaphor like he used above with a mugging/rape victim to be validly applied, all pertinent and outcome affecting details have to be preserved with the application of the metaphor between the first situation and the second. In this case, it does not. Specifically, There is a gun/knife/valid threat of credible violence in the one case, but this component is missing in the second case. Point to the gun/knife/credible threat as it concerns a situation where a college student decides to take a college grant. I can see it with taxation, but not with the grant. I don't believe anyone could honestly claim with a straight face that they had a gun to their head when they took that grant, and I believe that they were not forced to take it in any way. They had a choice in the matter. This also applies disconcordantly to disparate situations also brought up, such as government employees being justifed in their occupations. Are they? Do they really have a gun/knife/threat of credible violence hanging over them? I don't believe so, and I also think I have shown how such a broad definition of force/coercion if accepted leads to such absurdities as justifying the bank robber rendered desperate and poor because of living within a 'coercive society' and being a 'victim' of the government for taxing and spending society into the brink. This is certainly all true. He is certainly a victim on many levels of government actions, as are we all, but is he being threatened with force to go rob the bank? Haven't we seen just this exact type of justification from criminals before? I have. So if you justify the college student in this manner, you also implicitly justify the bank robber. There are forms of coercion which have nothing to do with physical violence. Lies and emotional manipulation are both very common examples. If I can make you believe something, I can control your behavior... I can make you self-attack. In fact, with deception I can accomplish significantly more than I can with a gun. Remember, it's not shooting someone that makes me powerful, it's threatening to shoot someone that makes me powerful. A necessary component of a free choice is the lack of artificial consequences. If one person imposes artificial, involuntary consequences on another, as part of a decision, then it isn't a free choice (It's a utilitarian calculation). In fact, a gun is worthless when compared with the power of making someone believe they will get shot. Coercion is power over the mind. It is not physical force. Violence is only the most obvious tool of control, there are many others. If you read the next part of the discussion, things have evolved a bit past 'coercion' mostly because I began seeing this as a misapplication of the NAP, with the fault being in the loose definition of force/coercion. Removing that word helps immediately I believe, since I think coercion is far too general a term to be applicable in the NAP as you have just demonstrated. The question then becomes, what specifically constitutes 'the initiation of the use of force'. Because depending upon how people act upon this answer, will determine their outlook for when they feel justified to act 'amoral' or so they believe in some fashion etc. Furthermore, would you argue there is such a thing as 'non-violent initiation of force' ? For you seem to think there is non-violent coercion, but that really becomes kind of a non-sequitar when we use the word force instead, do you agree? If not, or if you prefer to use the word coercion, Does non-violent 'coercion' then justify violent resistance or accepting? Perhaps that is too strong...does non-violent or psychological coercion justify acceptance of monies procured through violence? I'm not trying to be dick, I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're thinking here. Taking a government grant for college is like being the rapist. Actually, there is one difference. In the case of the rapist, the victim has expressed a preference not to have sex. No one relinquishing the money has expressed a preference for you not to take it. I'm not 100% sure I follow you completely, but I think you're saying and using the same justifcation for taxation that statists' use i.e., the fact they paid the tax is proof that its voluntary = The fact that no-one expresses opposition to it, must be proof that they accept being robbed and you taking the money. If so, I hope you can see why I would disagree with that sentiment. Furthermore, I hope you can also see why I would say that as a prevarication, and somewhat distasteful. The fact that I was forced by literal threat of death or imprisonment to relinquish the money should probably serve as an indictment of the whole thing. The fact that it is upheld by continued violence, literal not figurative, should at least make you pause. Furthermore, at the very least, this makes for a very convenient (and suspect) excuse, since most people don't need any convincing to take money, moral or immoral. In such a situation, I am automatically leery, confirmation bias being as prevalent in all our thinking as it is, and something I am constantly on guard against. Specifically: what is coercion? It seems the definition that Stefan uses is so widely interpreted that it could mean 'living in any society with a monopoly of violence at its center is a situation of coercion'. Address the specific before the general. Coercion exists between people (like two of 'em), as a series of spoken or gestural ideas. Being in a particular geographic area is no more an excuse to act-up than it is a social contract. Standing in the middle of Iowa has nothing to do with coercion. If you think of your interactions with other people as not being part of some gigantic collective named "Society", then you won't have quite so much trouble seeing coercion. I think this is exactly my point. I am trying to address the specific, and not let the principle be applied ad hoc to 'Society' and all of us living under government rule without justification. I think I have shown why that leads to the principle justifying just about anything, since we all live in 'society' and we all live with a 'government' dictating over us. I don't, typically speaking, think in 'collectives' and I suppose you could say this is precisely why I took issue with it being used in this fashion in the first place, because it made it Far to broad and over-reaching. I conclusion I think my position could be summed up this way: Its one thing to pay the mafia off since they will surely react violently if you don't, it's an entirely different thing to take their blood money voluntarily when no repercussions beyond being a bit poorer are in the offing. I'll let your own conscience decide which situation is which.
Arius Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Furthermore, would you argue there is such a thing as 'non-violent initiation of force' ? Suppose I threaten to shoot you, I don't have a gun, but you think I have a gun. There is no possibility for the violence described in the threat to occur, but it will allow me to control you just as well as if I actually had a gun. It is not the applicaion of force which accomplishes anything. The threat is the source of power. For you seem to think there is non-violent coercion, but that really becomes kind of a non-sequitar when we use the word force instead, do you agree? There is non-violent coercion. In any case where there is a threat used to impel, that is sufficient to remove moral culpability. The application of the threat is irrelevant. Empty threats work just as well. Does non-violent 'coercion' then justify violent resistance or accepting? Violence cannot solve interpersonal problems. If someone is a liar, don't beat them up. Just don't interact with them, if you have the choice. does non-violent or psychological coercion justify acceptance of monies procured through violence? If a someone tries to shame you into taking some money, should you do it? I'm of the opinion that people should resist illegitimate authority. Don't take the money because someone else tries to shame you into it. Only take the money if you prefer to. the fact they paid the tax is proof that its voluntary = The fact that no-one expresses opposition to it, must be proof that they accept being robbed and you taking the money. I'm not talking about paying taxes. I'm talking about you and the loan officer. The taxpayers are getting screwed, no doubt. However, we shouldn't shun rape-babies just because of how the enter the world. You realize, if you actually want to dissociate yourself from everything the state has ever touched, you'll need to become a hermit. I use the roads. Does that mean I endorse the way roads are built, support the state, or increase the total violence in society? No. It means I need to go places and have no other means by which to accomplish that activity. Where the state crowds-out all alternatives, it makes no sense to punish yourself. This is that "social contract" idea. Walking on the sidewalk is not an endorsement of the state. Getting a student loan is not an endorsement of the state. Its one thing to pay the mafia off since they will surely react violently if you don't, it's an entirely different thing to take their blood money voluntarily when no repercussions beyond being a bit poorer are in the offing. I'll let your own conscience decide which situation is which. Then you must, to apply that principle consistently, abandon the use of every non-survival product the state is involved in providing. Regardless, you cannot advance a consistent moral principle which states "People may not engage in voluntary transactions", which is exactly what you have done. The mafia guy wants the fellow to take the money, the fellow wants to take the mafia guy's money. While the money has an interesting history, and that may discourage the fellow from taking it, it is not wrong to take the money. Nor is it right to take the money. Voluntary transactions are always permissible.
Indefiance Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 Thanks for continuing the discussion. I have a few responses, which I have tried to keep short. First a Quick Reminder: The point under discussion is whether the use of the principle 'There is no morality under coercion' applies wholly to all those currently living under state coercion. Since this would be everyone, According to this logic then, all current actions currently undertaken by all state citizens can legitimately be called 'amoral' and we have effectively become moral nihilists... If you disagree, then you need to show me how my line of reasoning is invalid. Explaining it away via a preference or otherwise or some other utilitarian argument is not a valid rebuttal. Suppose I threaten to shoot you, I don't have a gun, but you think I have a gun. There is no possibility for the violence described in the threat to occur, but it will allow me to control you just as well as if I actually had a gun. It is not the applicaion of force which accomplishes anything. The threat is the source of power. Sure, nothing in here that I would disagree with. I don't think it matters though and it complicates the issue unnecessarily perhaps even grossly to no apparant benefit. Whether or not something is percieved as threatening really has no bearing on its actual threat level. People are scared of sharks, yet dogs kill far more people every year. THe point being that it could just as easily swing the other direction, where a legitimate threat to your survival is not percieved accurately as such to your detriment and possible demise. Thus I would say this is an unnecessary distinction, and my points above remain unchallenged as such. [/font] Violence cannot solve interpersonal problems. If someone is a liar, don't beat them up. Just don't interact with them, if you have the choice. I'm not sure I see why you brought this up. I would agree though. My question had more to do with how the implicit result of 'no morality in situations of coercion' if applied to mean 'the state' would make virtually every action, even violence, amoral. If a someone tries to shame you into taking some money, should you do it? I'm of the opinion that people should resist illegitimate authority. Don't take the money because someone else tries to shame you into it. Only take the money if you prefer to. Sure. I see nothing wrong with that. I'm not talking about paying taxes. I'm talking about you and the loan officer. The taxpayers are getting screwed, no doubt. However, we shouldn't shun rape-babies just because of how the enter the world. You realize, if you actually want to dissociate yourself from everything the state has ever touched, you'll need to become a hermit. I use the roads. Does that mean I endorse the way roads are built, support the state, or increase the total violence in society? No. It means I need to go places and have no other means by which to accomplish that activity. Where the state crowds-out all alternatives, it makes no sense to punish yourself. This is that "social contract" idea. Walking on the sidewalk is not an endorsement of the state. Getting a student loan is not an endorsement of the state. The metaphor of the 'rape-babies' doesn't really work. There is a fundamental, and massive, difference between a living human being and blood money taken by force. Remember the rules for a valid metaphor are that all pertinent and outcome affecting details must be preserved between sitation A and situation B. Also, not sure if this was your intention, but This could almost be seen as an appeal to emotion in particular sense, because who would want to be seen as 'against poor rape-babies'. I respond to the 'roads argument' below. Then you must, to apply that principle consistently, abandon the use of every non-survival product the state is involved in providing. Regardless, you cannot advance a consistent moral principle which states "People may not engage in voluntary transactions", which is exactly what you have done. The mafia guy wants the fellow to take the money, the fellow wants to take the mafia guy's money. While the money has an interesting history, and that may discourage the fellow from taking it, it is not wrong to take the money. Nor is it right to take the money. Voluntary transactions are always permissible. Not quite true. But even if it were true it wouldn't negate my points above. Only showing where I have made a mistep logically will do that. Morality being objective from our desires means that it is perfectly possible for us to have to renounce the state completely in order to be moral. That would have to be proven of course, but just because it makes it inconvenient for us is not an argument from morality, but an argument from convenience. A utilitarian argument if you will. Also, If you give this a bit more thought I bet you can see why you are wrong about it as well. I specifically said that we can just tighten up the meanings and words in the principle 'no morality in situations of coercion' so that it prohibits moral judgement where appropriate, but avoids both the overly broad applications that effectively make us moral nihilists, as well as your overly narrow interpretation as well which would be egregious to say the least. I have tried to specifically say repeatedly, that Where the threat of violence is direct, legitimate, and unavoidable then it certainly applies. College loans are easily avoidable, and so are not justified. Government Jobs are also very avoidable (at least outside of soviet russia) and are therefor also not justified. The roads however are not avoidable. I would gladly pay a private company for this service and/or build my own, but should I do so without permission, the repercussions would be severe and violent if I resisted or persisted. Roads fall under the same category as Taxation for this very reason. The threat is direct, legitimate, and unavoidable. In response to your claim that an exchange of money between the mafia and someone else is a 'voluntary' action; I can only say that I hope you will give that a second look. As a hint, Siding with the criminal is usually a red flag. But you have also completely mischaracterized the entire situation. There are not 2 parties here. But 3. Nor is it a voluntary transaction between party A and Party B, but an INVOLUNTARY transaction between party A and party C faciliated by force/threat/violence by party B. By forgetting all about the victim here puts you in the same camp as statists claiming taxation is voluntary. Downplaying the history of the money is also a rather suspect move that I hope you can admit to being wrong about. The metaphor between the Mafia representing all forms of statism, and the payout being all forms of money taken by force in government holds firm. I would also add that this is completely superfluous to the point above.
Arius Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 First a Quick Reminder: The point under discussion is whether the use of the principle 'There is no morality under coercion' applies wholly to all those currently living under state coercion. Since this would be everyone, According to this logic then, all current actions currently undertaken by all state citizens can legitimately be called 'amoral' and we have effectively become moral nihilists... If you disagree, then you need to show me how my line of reasoning is invalid. Explaining it away via a preference or otherwise or some other utilitarian argument is not a valid rebuttal. I think we're talking about the state differently. I would agree that, in any case where the state is threatening a person, there is no opportunity for a moral choice. However, simply being in a country cannot reasonably be construed as a threat. In fact, anything which is not part of an interaction between two people cannot be construed as a threat. Walking on a road is not a threat. It being tax day is not a threat. The threat is the nasty letter from someone at the IRS, or the cop who knocks on the door. There is no gigantic, sentient, omnipresent organism named "The state". "The state" is shorthand for "a person or persons who claim the right to coerce"... Simply, those people who imagine themselves to be the rulers of others are the state. You do not live in constant danger. Anyone making an argument that they live under total, constant threat would need better evidence than "I'm standing in Iowa" or "It's April". Alternatively, if their actually is no opportunity for any free choices, then there is no opportunity for morality. There are not 2 parties here. But 3. I believe you see a continuity between the two sets of interactions. Perhaps you believe accepting the money has a greater implication. If I am handed a rock, which was used to kill a person, by the murderer (not as part of an avoidance of an investigation)... Some guy just hands me a rock which was previously used to kill some other person, do I endorse the murder by performing the act of taking? There are no implicit agreements created by accepting offered objects. Voluntary transactions are always permissible. Not quite true. The argument that some class of voluntary transaction is not permissible, is a positive argument for a state. It's "People, if left to their own devices, will take prohibited, yet mutually preferable, action X (smoking crack, copyright infringement, whatever). We must, therefore, use violence to prevent action X from being taken." If some class of voluntary transaction is morally prohibited, then we need coercion in society to break-up that transaction, as people will not avoid the prohibited action of their own volition. We know that coercion is morally wrong, so all types of voluntary transactions must be morally permissible. Look, we cannot morally support the A->C action, that's clear. However, there is no reason (no social contract) to think that the A->B action (getting paid) constitutes support of the A->C action (robbery). If, for example, B told A to go get C's money (if you vote), then there's all sorts of room for moralizing. Or, if A and B collude (if you are a politician or a lobbyist) to take C's money, that's also not kosher. However, if A is just out there in the world, robbing indiscriminately, then taking A's gifts, surrendering to A when threatened, and fighting-back against A are all morally permissible. That is not to say it is right to take A's money, there are no involuntary positive moral obligations. It is neither right nor wrong, entirely a matter of preference. I believe that you are arguing that taking A's money is either an A-and-B-colluding-against-C or a B-instructing-A-against-C scenario. To me, it's better to simply stop A from wandering around and robbing people than to moralize against people who get gifts. It doesn't really matter who gets the ill-gotten gains. What matters is stopping the ill-getting.
Indefiance Posted March 13, 2013 Author Posted March 13, 2013 "There is no morality under situations of coercion". Paraphrasing here, "we all live under government coercion, therefor your actions are amoral and cannot be judged". In saying this, Stefan perhaps unwittingly gave carte blanche to all actions taken while under government coercion. Effectively making the case for moral nihilism. Since I disagree with moral nihilism, and I believe he does as well, I thought I would help by pointing this out, because this misuse of the principle can equally apply to the bank robber and the welfare recipient alike, there is no logical distinction made between them, nor can there be an arbitrary distinction made by preference. If you grant the one, you have to grant the other by the same logic. They both live under the same coercion right? They both could rightfully claim the government rob's them, destroys wealth, and brings society crashing down with them unable to do anything to stop it. They are just trying to survive,... They both feel justified to do what they do, and if other people get hurt along the way, so be it. All I am saying is that this misuse of the principle is a blank check written just for people like them. If you have nothing to show me how this logic is incorrect besides utiliatarian preferences and various other appeals, I fear this discussion has run aground. For This is my one and only point. The other stuff you keep bringing up is starting to feel like purposeful obfuscation on your part. Am I saying that there is no difference between acting the aggressor on the one hand, and taking a handout on the other. NO. In fact I'm trying to show why the overly broad use of the principle as used by Stefan within the show is precisely what creates the problem in the first place. Neither person is justified. Neither person is doing an AMORAL action, and we can accurately describe both as immoral. I AM saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case. One cannot logically create an arbitrary difference here, where there is none. If one says that 'there is no morality under situations of coercion' and then goes on to claim that living under government rule constitutes 'coercion' and furthermore goes on to use this line of reasoning to justify the actions of welfare recipients, paying taxes, using roads, and being on the dole in general, then you can't then go on to claim that it doesn't apply to all actions under situations of coercion. If you say the first group has a gun to their head skewing their actions and the blame therefor lies at the feet of those holding the gun, then you MUST also apply it to the second group, those driven to desperate measures like the bank robber just trying to survive, the burglar who is starving, or the guy who murders the IRS agent showing up at his house to destroy him forever. All of these people, group A and group B live under government coercion. Therefor the principle 'there is no morality under situations of coercion' applies equally to all of them if you say that living under a government constitutes 'coercion' as Stefan appears to have done. My problem is with this broad use of the principle. My solution to avoiding the moral nihilism this creates? Don't be so broad with the use of the word coercion. If you re-read all of my posts above, I think you will find that my solution works. The difference between a legitmate use of the principle has to be how avoidable is the danger. How credible, How legitimate, how disperse vs. direct etc... define it however you wish. But the intention has to be to correctly judge the danger. If approached in this manner, the conundrum of giving carte blanche to bank robbers disappears, but so too does the moral justification for those on the dole, on welfare, taking grants etc... And I think this is what you have a problem with. I'm sorry thats just Too bad, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't eat your cake before you bake it, you can't stand in a bucket pulling on the handle to fly, add any number of logical impossibilities here..... whatever gets the point across. It doesn't matter your preference, or possible guilt that you thought was assuaged. Logic doesn't care. Perhaps there is another way to justify those on the dole, those on welfare, those taking as much from the state as they can, perhaps they are justified in some manner by some other logic. But this isn't it, and that is my only point. The rest is just utilitarian distractions. [/font] [/font]Voluntary transactions are always permissible.[/font] Not quite true. [/font]The argument that some class of voluntary transaction is not permissible, is a positive argument for a state. I think you inadvertently mistook that. My statement 'Not quite true' was directed towards your statement, 'Then you must, to apply that principle consistently, abandon the use of every non-survival product the state is involved in providing.' It's not quite true since I believe you're not seeing which situation is which appropriately, as evidenced by the fact that you seem to be agreeing with Stefan's application of it. I thought that the context of the rest of my reply would make that understood, which went on to show why you can be consistent and guilt free so long as you define 'coercion' sensibly. Roads are required I believe for survival. At least for me, I am fairly certain it would be my death if I tried to live as a hermit. Not that I wouldn't give it my best try, but without the skillset and a support community, living alone in the woods is highly untenable long term. So I do view the use of the roads as a gun to my head, since I know no other way to survive. I believe I can make the case for that far better then the college student taking the grant. As for other 'services', it depends on the impact. I can give you a specific instance in my own life. In my community there is a community water park, huge olympic sized pool, waterslides, toys etc... Cost us literally 100's of millions locally (community of about 70,000) right at the height of the recession 2009. I refuse to partake, I refuse to to go. Plenty of private pools, or I can just not go altogether. My survival is not at stake, and I can lead a perfectly happy life without it. This is definitly a case where direct and legitimate coercion has no bearing. If I used The logic presented in the show, then the fact that I live in society, and society is ruled by coercion would give me a 'clear conscience' to go. But since I understand the principle better than that, I realize that there is NO GUN to my head, and I would not be justified to go. It is a small matter, but I live a guilt free life, which is no small matter. In reply to you're belief that the forceful transfer of property is legitimate and conveys ownership to the person in possession, I can only say you should look at that again a little more closely. For that is the only way a person could possibly see the transactions of gangsters and governments as anything but robbery. By taking the handout knowing the money was stolen, under the law, even laws of a free society, you would be an accomplice to the act. In a free society ran by insurance companies, I could bring a claim against both you and the original robber if I could prove you took the STOLEN property willingly and knowingly. If you disagree, all I can say is you're confused on this issue because you believe the labels 'government' convey special moral properties. Because You seem to be making special exceptions for government, almost like you believe their claim of existence to be legitimate. They are just people. If a private individual robs me, the property doesn't become theres. If they use MY property to pay someone else, and the other person knows that the property was stolen, I can sue them both and rightfully claim restitiution from BOTH OF THEM, because they are both Thieves. The property never changes ownership, it remains mine the entire time regardless of who has possession. If you disagree, then you're confused, and the UPB rule you would have to claim would be 'All forceful redistribution of property conveys legitimate ownership to those in possession' and in case you missed it you have just given a moral rule that justifies all theft.Anyway, I believe I have spent enough time on this. Just as heads up, unless the logic on the original point presented above is directly addressed and shown to be wrong somehow, then I won't be replying here anymore. The rest of the argument is just hashing out the details as far as I am concerned, and mostly unimportant. The meat of the argument is whether or not I am correct to claim that the overly broad use of the principle in question as done by Stefan leads to moral Nihilism. If someone wishes to address this then I would be happy to reply.
Arius Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 I can summarize my counter argument so it better meets your needs. When you are alone in a room, the government is not there. When you are standing in a field with several other people, the government is not there. We do not live under perpetual coercion, violent or otherwise. Were you to make that claim, you would need to identify the source of this coercion, you have, as of yet, failed to do this. Living in close proximity to a bunch of violent assholes in insufficient justification for moral nihilism. As I said, geographic location is not a source of coercion. If you can identify the gun (figuratively or literally) which is constantly pointed at everyone, then that would be worth considering as a source of perpetual coercion. Barring something more tangible than "the state rules", you have not yet shown the necessary link between the ideas of moral nihilism and amorality in coercive situations to justify the claim that the latter must lead to the former.
Arius Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 After a long, sunny walk, I realize that I'm sidestepping your actual argument. You are not arguing that a state of total coercion exists now. You are arguing that, if a state of total coercion existed, everyone's moral obligations would be indistinguishable from moral nihilism. Suppose that every person lived under a quasi-omnipotent, coercive entity. I'll use the popular example. Suppose God exists (the Christian one). If an entity creates arbitrary rules about all types behavior, and enforces those rules through the swift application of force, then everyone lives in a condition of constant, absolute coercion. In that case, there are no opportunities to make free choices, and no moral obligations. So, you are correct. In the case of an absolute state of coercion, there is no room for moral practice. However, for every degree of freedom in choice and action which exists, there is room for moral practice. This is distinct from the moral nihilist position: there is no morality, no matter the amount of freedom in choice and action. I would say: The amount of morality in a situation is inversely proportionate to the amount of coercion. A moral nihilist would say: There is no morality in any situation. I hope that better addresses you argument.
Indefiance Posted March 14, 2013 Author Posted March 14, 2013 I can summarize my counter argument so it better meets your needs. When you are alone in a room, the government is not there. When you are standing in a field with several other people, the government is not there. We do not live under perpetual coercion, violent or otherwise. After a long, sunny walk, I realize that I'm sidestepping your actual argument. You are not arguing that a state of total coercion exists now. You are arguing that, if a state of total coercion existed, everyone's moral obligations would be indistinguishable from moral nihilism............ I would say: The amount of morality in a situation is inversely proportionate to the amount of coercion. A moral nihilist would say: There is no morality in any situation. True. If I understand you correctly, this is entirely what I was trying to get at, and you did so with far fewer words and more eloquently than I could muster. You're right, I never claimed a condition of total coercion existed, and my apologies if I wasn't clear enough on that. In truth I was claiming just the opposite, that any supposed total coercion of society doesn't literally exist. I was taking issue with the fact that Stefan presented his entire case on the show as if it did exist, thereby attempting to give those voluntarily involved with the state carte blanche to do so without any moral repercussions. This whole time I was merely pointing out that to suppose such a total coercion as a means of pretending no morality exists in specific instances (taking of gov grants, welfare, etc.) has the unintended side-effect of claiming all actions amoral and is a perfect recipe/ammunition for all the moral nihilists nipping at our heels in the liberty movement. I would also add that even with your very concise definition of the principle (which I am totally copying from now on), we have to be careful around the word coercion. Loosely defined by those who are at times loose with definitions, it still could be misconstrued to mean just about anything as it concerns 'the state'. This is dependant on the person of course, but I believe reasonable people will agree that no gun is at their head forcing them to partake of most voluntary 'services' provided by the state, and the only morally actionable choice is total boycott where actual choice is possible. Specifically in that statement; Choice means without coercion and Coercion means direct and unavoidable consequences where life and limb are at stake. My own credo I have lived by these last few years when I came to these core conclusions after I accepted Anarchism based on the morality presented by Stefan, I always summed up this way: Choose where I have the power to choose, Act where I have the power to Act. When you know my specific definition of the word choose, you will see how this is fully applicable within all of our lives even while living under our brutal masters. When the power of choice is taken from me by this strict definition, when I can see the unmistakable gun at my head, I agree with Stefan, the blame does not lie at my feet.Anyway, Thanks for taking the time to carify where we were having a disconnect and please let me know if my thinking on this is correct or if you still see any problems with it.
Recommended Posts